# Christians: Why are scientists more likely to be non-believers? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 1, 2013, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322 "2013-07-01T06:22:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 33
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/641 "2013-07-18T17:23:06Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > If you would like to cite a portion of the fossil record that seemingly contradicts what im saying, please do. Again, you will only find a portion, never the full geologic column, which was simply invented by an atheist lawyer named Lyell. Already did this earlier, on this page, and you had nothing to say about it. It’s been proven, you’ve been shown this, you have yet to rebut any of it, you are wrong. And please stop repeating creationist garbage, this crap about Lyell [is simply not true.](http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD200.html) > [@](#): > > However I can quickly point to any number of polystrate fossils which contradicts your theory, immediately. Go for it. Oh, and please come up with something new, not the [usual](http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC332_2.html) [long](http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC335.html) [debunked](http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC331.html) [creationist](http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC332.html) [stuff](http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC332_1.html). ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/642 "2013-07-18T18:03:26Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Thanks for the cites, but you would have to compare it with the Hebrew used in Gen 1:3, not in the same verse. Why? It’s a different from the verse I’m referring to. One is ma’owr and the other is 'owr Let’s l[ook at Ma’or](http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Lexicon.show/ID/H3974/maowr.htm): > [@](#): > > Strong’s #3974: ma’owr (pronounced maw-ore’) > > or maor {maw-ore’}; also (in plural) feminine mpowrah {meh-o-raw’}; or morah {meh-o-raw’}; from 215; properly, **a luminous body or luminary** , i.e. (abstractly) light (as an element): figuratively, brightness, i.e.cheerfulness; specifically, a chandelier:–bright, light. I used Strongs here because [BLB](http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H3974&t=KJV) was a bit sparce: > [@](#): > > 1. light, luminary Obviously this sides with what I’m saying. Let’s look at ['owr](http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H216&t=KJV): > [@](#): > > 1. light > > a) light of day > > **b) light of heavenly luminaries (moon, sun, stars)** > > c) day-break, dawn, morning light > > d) daylight > > e) lightning > > f) light of lamp > > g) light of life > > h) light of prosperity > > i) light of instruction > > j) light of face (fig.) > > k) Jehovah as Israel’s light Appealing to 1.3 doesn’t help your case at all. In fact, you are definitely reaching at this point. > [@reef\_shark](#): > > After that we can move back to MT 24, again. Why? You haven’t gotten yourself out of the first problem. You seem to attempt to pull stuff out of your butt, it gets knocked down, and you pull the same stuff back out. > [@Marley23](#): > > Which doesn’t explain the fact that the fossil record looks nothing like you’re saying it should look. However it does contradict your own theory, so there’s that. He’s just reaching Marley, it’s pretty obvious that he wants others to do the heavy intellectual lifting so he can come in and then attempt to handwave the problems away and re-assert his positions. ---
**Author:** ![dougie\_monty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/439d5e/32.png) [@dougie\_monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dougie_monty)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/643 "2013-07-18T18:09:23Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > If this is your declaration that you are leaving the thread, I will let this lie. If you intend to continue to hurl personal insults at other posters, you will garner a Warning. > > [/Moderating] I had begun this “discussion”–if I can call it that–with a straightforward account, from a high-school biology textbook, of historical scientiific experiments testing a hypothesis critical to a tenet of evolution. Unfortunately, some people took it upon themselves to reply in such a manner that I could not carry on a coherent discussion; and they even impugned the scientists’ motives (“falsification” was one term they used.) I have a very low tolerance for the attitude of contermpt expressed by people who taunt me in a public forum with cutesy words like “Goddidit.” I consider myself to have been provoked and that is why I wrote what I did. The attitude of contempt stands as a grosser insult than any words I have used. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/644 "2013-07-18T18:19:56Z")
> [@dougie\_monty](#): > > I had begun this “discussion”–if I can call it that–with a straightforward account, from a high-school biology textbook, of historical scientiific experiments testing a hypothesis critical to a tenet of evolution. Unfortunately, some people took it upon themselves to reply in such a manner that I could not carry on a coherent discussion; and they even impugned the scientists’ motives (“falsification” was one term they used.) I have a very low tolerance for the attitude of contermpt expressed by people who taunt me in a public forum with cutesy words like “Goddidit.” I consider myself to have been provoked and that is why I wrote what I did. The attitude of contempt stands as a grosser insult than any words I have used. “Falsification” is one of those tricky technical terms that those sneaky scientists keep using. It means testing to try to prove an idea incorrect, as opposed to testing to see if an idea is correct. Test are designed by asking “If it is not true that (a), then we will see (b) happen under circumstances (c)”. In Pasteur’s case, he falsified the idea that molds, maggots, or mice spontaneously appear on rotting food. It has nothing to do with data being fabricated or the researchers lying. (ETA: and that is entirely the wrong way to report something to the Moderators.) ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/645 "2013-07-18T18:38:00Z")
I apologize for the double post, but here is a link to explain the term. > **[Falsifiability](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability)** > > Falsifiability is a deductive standard of evaluation of scientific theories and hypotheses, introduced by the philosopher of science Karl Popper in his book The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934).\[B\] A theory or hypothesis is falsifiable (or refutable) if it can be logically contradicted by an empirical test. > Popper proposed falsifiability as the cornerstone solution to both the problem of induction and the problem of demarcation. He insisted that, as a logical criterion, falsifiability is ... But seriously, discussing scientific research without knowing what “falsifiability” means is as ignorant as doing Bible study without knowing that it was not originally written in English. ---
**Author:** ![dougie\_monty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/439d5e/32.png) [@dougie\_monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dougie_monty)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/646 "2013-07-18T19:21:21Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > “Falsification” is one of those tricky technical terms that those sneaky scientists keep using. It means testing to try to prove an idea incorrect, as opposed to testing to see if an idea is correct. Test are designed by asking “If it is not true that (a), then we will see (b) happen under circumstances (c)”. In Pasteur’s case, he falsified the idea that molds, maggots, or mice spontaneously appear on rotting food. > > It has nothing to do with data being fabricated or the researchers lying. > > (ETA: and that is entirely the wrong way to report something to the Moderators.) 1. In other words, if I understand you aright, “falsification,” as you (and apparently Voyager) use it in this thread, is a term used in scientists’ jargon. Forgive me, please. Perhaps this is the equivalent of “impeachent,” in legal jargon, specifically in which a lawyer attempts to discredit, for example, a witness’ testimony insofar as the jurors’ (or judge’s) belief of it is concerned. Well, that makes Voyager’s point clearer, but then again I did not use legal jargon in this thread; Voyager probably should not have used specialized scientific jargon, since, to non-scientists, “falsification” connotes dishonesty–in this case, impugning the honesty of Redi and Pasteur, which I now see was not the issue here. 2. I am unaware of the _proper_ way to report something to a moderator, but I think Voyager should see my defense of my position as well. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/647 "2013-07-18T19:31:40Z")
You’re a "99"er, **dougie monty** , and this _very_ commonly used scientific term is new to you? I learned what it means in high school. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/648 "2013-07-18T19:34:05Z")
> [@dougie\_monty](#): > > 1. In other words, if I understand you aright, “falsification,” as you (and apparently Voyager) use it in this thread, is a term used in scientists’ jargon. Forgive me, please. Perhaps this is the equivalent of “impeachent,” in legal jargon, specifically in which a lawyer attempts to discredit, for example, a witness’ testimony insofar as the jurors’ (or judge’s) belief of it is concerned. Well, that makes Voyager’s point clearer, but then again I did not use legal jargon in this thread; Voyager probably should not have used specialized scientific jargon, since, to non-scientists, “falsification” connotes dishonesty–in this case, impugning the honesty of Redi and Pasteur, which I now see was not the issue here. I’m not trying to pile on or insult you or anything of that nature, but falsification is one way that scientists use to verify ideas. Most of science is based on abduction, or an appeal to the best explanation. You can’t really ‘prove’ anything in science (perhaps some mathematical models), the best you can do is come up with something that fits the evidence and has not been falsified. You are correct that it’s a jargon term - it’s one that is often used in these sorts of discussions. > [@dougie\_monty](#): > > 1. I am unaware of the _proper_ way to report something to a moderator, but I think Voyager should see my defense of my position as well. You can either PM them or post about it in ATMB. You can always PM Voyager (or whoever) to view that thread (obviously not the PM to the moderator). ---
**Author:** ![dougie\_monty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/439d5e/32.png) [@dougie\_monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dougie_monty)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/649 "2013-07-18T19:50:14Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > You’re a "99"er, **dougie monty** , and this _very_ commonly used scientific term is new to you? I learned what it means in high school. I took **chemistry** in high school. My **sister** took biology. We didn’t even go to the same high school (long story). "99"er? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![dougie\_monty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/439d5e/32.png) [@dougie\_monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dougie_monty)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/650 "2013-07-18T19:58:05Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > I apologize for the double post, but here is a link to explain the term. > > [Falsifiability - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability) > > But seriously, discussing scientific research without knowing what “falsifiability” means is as ignorant as doing Bible study without knowing that it was not originally written in English. ‘The Bible wasn’t originally written in English’? Oh, don’t tell that to Jack Chick–he’ll throw a fit! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/651 "2013-07-18T20:00:09Z")
> [@dougie\_monty](#): > > I took **chemistry** in high school. My **sister** took biology. We didn’t even go to the same high school (long story). > > "99"er? 😕 Odd, I had to take both. As to 99er, he’s referring to your join date. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/652 "2013-07-18T20:12:36Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > Odd, I had to take both. > > As to 99er, he’s referring to your join date. I learned the term in both chemistry and biology. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/653 "2013-07-18T20:29:27Z")
> [@dougie\_monty](#): > > "99"er? 😕 You joined SDMB in 1999, right. Hey, there, Buddy! ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/654 "2013-07-18T20:52:00Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > Do you believe that the science of geology as practiced today (which does things like find oil deposits) is an elaborate plot designed to discredit Christianity? No, it only discredits literalist fundamentalism. There’s a difference. ---
**Author:** ![dougie\_monty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/439d5e/32.png) [@dougie\_monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dougie_monty)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/655 "2013-07-18T22:42:32Z")
I’d like to know how you approach “literal” vis-a-vis Romans 12:17-21. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/656 "2013-07-19T00:20:55Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > No, it only discredits literalist fundamentalism. There’s a difference. Yeah, I should have specified that I was directing that question to Reef Shark ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/657 "2013-07-19T00:54:49Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > No, it only discredits literalist fundamentalism. There’s a difference. That’s true. Liberal Christians water down their beliefs such that they can’t be discredited in real time. They’re very crafty that way. ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/658 "2013-07-19T01:13:26Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > Why? It’s a different from the verse I’m referring to. One is ma’owr and the other is 'owr > > Let’s l[ook at Ma’or](http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Lexicon.show/ID/H3974/maowr.htm): > > I used Strongs here because [BLB](http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H3974&t=KJV) was a bit sparce: > > Obviously this sides with what I’m saying. Let’s look at ['owr](http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H216&t=KJV): > > Appealing to 1.3 doesn’t help your case at all. In fact, you are definitely reaching at this point. > > Why? You haven’t gotten yourself out of the first problem. > > You seem to attempt to pull stuff out of your butt, it gets knocked down, and you pull the same stuff back out. > > He’s just reaching Marley, it’s pretty obvious that he wants others to do the heavy intellectual lifting so he can come in and then attempt to handwave the problems away and re-assert his positions. I was not reaching at all. You just proved my point by showing there was a different Hebrew word used in Gen 1:3 for light vs. Gen 1:16 ('owr vs. ma’owr). If you can admit this, we can move on to Matthew, thanks. ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/659 "2013-07-19T01:18:04Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > Already did this earlier, on this page, and you had nothing to say about it. It’s been proven, you’ve been shown this, you have yet to rebut any of it, you are wrong. > > And please stop repeating creationist garbage, this crap about Lyell [is simply not true.](http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD200.html) > Go for it. Oh, and please come up with something new, not the [usual](http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC332_2.html) [long](http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC335.html) [debunked](http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC331.html) [creationist](http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC332.html) [stuff](http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC332_1.html). Using talkorigins to defend Lyell, seriously? Ok then: > **[Darwin and Lyell](https://creation.com/darwin-and-lyell)** > > Darwin's evolutionary materialism grew out of the philosophy of deism that he adopted from his influential friends, particularly lawyer Charles Lyell. ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/660 "2013-07-19T01:34:08Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > Do you believe that the science of geology as practiced today (which does things like find oil deposits) is an elaborate plot designed to discredit Christianity? Not at all. Oil deposits simply result from extreme heat and pressure turning decomposing organic material into oil. A lot of that dead organic material could come from a global flood, no? The same goes for plants and coal. > **[How fast can oil form?](https://creation.com/how-fast-can-oil-form)** > > Creation or evolution? It makes a big difference! Over 10,000 trustworthy articles. Evidence for biblical creation. -Before anyone automatically wants to discredit this article without checking the references, please check the non-biased references first. Thanks. I assume you’re mentioning oil and geology in reference to the debate on the age of the earth. Here is an interesting article on diamonds, which are thought to require deep time to form: > **[Diamonds: a creationist’s best friend](https://creation.com/en-au/articles/diamonds-a-creationists-best-friend)** > > The presence of radioactive carbon-14 (14C) in diamonds indicates that they > cannot be millions of years old but are young, in accordance with biblical > history. Regardless of the age of the earth, the main point that is debated here (from my standpoint) is simply creation vs. evolution. In no way have I ever claimed that someone who doesn’t believe in a young earth is not a Christian. This time element should not be a divider of Christians, in my opinion. If you believe in Jesus and what he claimed to be, that should be enough for common ground. Oil deposits really should have nothing to do with Christianity. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322.md?page=32) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322.md?page=34)